|
Post by raphael on Oct 4, 2010 9:53:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by chatornookie on Oct 4, 2010 12:26:19 GMT -5
it's legit... don't know if it's gonna be any good though... :-\
.
|
|
|
Post by raphael on Oct 4, 2010 12:36:13 GMT -5
Why was I thinking moonshine was around 200 proof?
|
|
|
Post by chatornookie on Oct 4, 2010 13:26:24 GMT -5
dunno... recipes are adjustable... so as long as they can bring it in to whatever their regulations specifiies... then they will be good to go... ;D
.
|
|
|
Post by raphael on Oct 4, 2010 15:06:15 GMT -5
dunno... recipes are adjustable... so as long as they can bring it in to whatever their regulations specifiies... then they will be good to go... ;D . False advertising then! If it ain't the real "shine" then the peoples are going to whine. ;D
|
|
|
Post by manlyman on Oct 4, 2010 15:18:38 GMT -5
I was searching for an article that stated what alcohol content the average moonshine has. I came upon this one on Yahoo answers: "It is usually 150 proof, which is about 75 percent alcohol" The I came upon theis one on Wikipedia: "Another test used for moonshine is to "proof". A small amount of gun powder is poured in a dish with the moonshine. It is ignited and if the mixture starts to flame it is "proofed." In other words if it lights then it contains a good amount of alcohol, but if it does not flame the moonshine has been diluted. Note that this only proves the alcohol to be at least 57.15% ABV. To make moon shine you must suck your dads dick" Shows how easily idiots can foul up a decent definition on Wiki!
|
|
|
Post by chatornookie on Oct 4, 2010 16:04:05 GMT -5
dunno... recipes are adjustable... so as long as they can bring it in to whatever their regulations specifiies... then they will be good to go... ;D . False advertising then! If it ain't the real "shine" then the peoples are going to whine. ;D i can't really say either way... 200 proof is the highest proof there can ever be... proof being 2x the ABV, or alcohol by volume... so anything 200PF is 100% alcohol... we've got some boubons that are 193.5PF... so it's conceivable that one could make a near perfect shine... as long as it's legal to manufacture that in TN... *shrug* ETA: i can't see something that is 100% alcohol having any flavor... .
|
|
|
Post by chatornookie on Oct 14, 2010 11:36:23 GMT -5
hey Raph and Manly... i just set up this supplier for Florida...
they are selling: OLE SMOKY TENNESSEE MOONSHINE ORIGINAL OLE SMOKY TENNESSEE MOONSHINE CHERRIES OLE SMOKY TENNESSEE MOONSHINE WHITE LIGHTNIN
under Ole Smokey but the address is Sevierville TN so must be an office addy... :-\
and they also handle: ALASKA DISTILLERY SMOKED SALMON FLAVORED VODKA
which comes from Glacier Creek Distillary in Wasilla Alaska... not sure why the label name and the distillery name are different... :-\
ETA: just got the new setup for the material... says here that the 'shines are all 100 proof... .
|
|
|
Post by chatornookie on Oct 14, 2010 11:37:04 GMT -5
heh... y'all are in cahoots with sarah, eh...?
.
|
|
|
Post by raphael on Oct 14, 2010 12:08:09 GMT -5
"Set up?" Do I get a cut? Still ain't real shine! ;D
|
|
|
Post by manlyman on Oct 14, 2010 12:08:11 GMT -5
heh... y'all are in cahoots with sarah, eh...? . A true "shiner" would NEVER flavor his spirits with fish! That just sounds nasty!!!
|
|
|
Post by raphael on Oct 14, 2010 12:10:02 GMT -5
heh... y'all are in cahoots with sarah, eh...? . A true "shiner" would NEVER flavor his spirits with fish! That just sounds nasty!!! Sounds rather fishy to me!
|
|
|
Post by chatornookie on Oct 14, 2010 12:10:59 GMT -5
"Set up?" Do I get a cut? Still ain't real shine! ;D LOLs... set up in the system to sell... and no you don't get a cut nor can you buy it without a liquor license... ;D .
|
|
|
Post by chatornookie on Oct 14, 2010 12:12:31 GMT -5
A true "shiner" would NEVER flavor his spirits with fish! That just sounds nasty!!! the 'shine ain't fish flavored... but the folks doing the suppling are handling both the 'shine... and the nasty fish vodka that likely only Fredo would try... < insert puking smiley here > .
|
|